Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
  • Our picks

joshjy

millennium door and event security CCJ now DCBL

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 962 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

HI everyone

 

my first post on this site as i am in a bit of a pickle

 

around 2 years ago at my gym ( which also happens to be a hotel & restaurant ) company called "millennium door and event security randomly turned up and decided to start slapping tickets on everyones cars

 

( gym users , hotel stayers & restaurant eaters all included )

 

as you can imagine there was quite the uproar with many complaints going to the hotel manager about this whom seemingly was unaware what exactly was going on ,but someone within the hotel had agreed that millennium could start ticketing peoples cars under the pretence that they were " managing the car park " i imagine of course the hotel would receive a percentage of any " charges recovered "

 

i avoided the whole thing for a while although i will admit things like this make my blood boil as this business model is created to inflict misery on innocent people and to generate pure profits for the robbers that own these companies

 

i cannot believe that in 2017 companies like this are still allowed to get away with slapping tickets on peoples cars on land they have absolutely no affiliation with

 

anyway around a year ago i damaged some ligaments in my leg , i still attended my gym as there was a good physiotherapist there and i liked to use the pool facility

 

however for around 5-6 months i was unable to walk distances and therefore i would use the disabled spaces provided by the hotel

 

this is where the problems began everytime i would return from using the facilitys i would find a "ticket" on my windscreen

 

i must have collected around 20 of them in 6 months however as i pay a monthly fee for my gym i believed i was more than entitled to use the private disabled parking space provided by the hotel and simply ignored the nonsense tickets

 

i can remember even querying this with the gym manager who said the rules do not apply to patrons and members ( the sign millennium door and event security had put up even mentions this )

 

i kept throwing the tickets away and thought nothing more of it , until i started receiving mountains of letters from "max recovery" and "goldstones solicitors" more con artists

 

 

i ignored all these swell thinking it was all huffing and puffing trying to bully money out of me

 

next thing i am being served county court papers from some business centre in Nottingham ( 200 miles from where i live )

 

first i received one claim stating i owe £400 - this was the first one and i actually went to court with expecting somebody to see sense and throw it in the bin gladstone rocked up with 3 solicitors and had carefully analysed every single defence point i had I'm not joking they must have spent more time on this than the OJ simpson trail

 

myself and the magistrate had lost all interest by the end and the court awarded them the full amount minus a little bit of interest they were trying to claim i ended up paying these ba*stards £374 in full they were not prepared to negotiate a payment plan of any type

 

then a few months later i receive one stating i owe another £350 - by this point i had enough and just threw it in the bin ( i know stupid ) the judgement defaulted and they yet again get the result they so desperately wanted along with a CCJ which has now been handed to DCBL aka don't pay we will take it away :)

 

i also have another case with them waiting to go to court for another £400 - but i have been clever in dragging this one out for along as i possible can by switching addresses and saying i am out of the country for 5 months but i have no doubt that gladstone will be after this one like a dog after a bone too

 

 

anyway its the defaulted one they have a cci for i am most concerned about at the moment because i live with my parents and where as if i was on my own i simply wouldnt even acknowledge they're existence and would potentially consider an acceptable level of force to remove them from my property ( yes i feel that strongly about it )

 

my mother is old and would get frightened easily if 2 burly debt collection attack dogs and a camera crew turned up at the door one day

 

i am aware there is no where else to really turn now I have accepted i will have to pay the criminals £350 and be thankful for it :mad2: however like most ordinary people who don't con others on a daily basis i don't actually have a spare £350 just laying around to pay them i am insolvent and live on very little

 

i am going to ring DCBL tomorrow to see if i can pay £50 a month I'm already anticipating they will politely decline this and i notice there is no way to contact them via email ( meaning no paper trail of attempted negotiations for court )

 

 

so assuming this will probably end up in high court a few questions

 

1) could a £350 debt even incur a high court writ and if not does it just go back to county court what sanctions do they take

 

2) i am aware you can ask the court to set aside the judgement or set up a payment plan however they want £50 minimum to do either of these extremely difficult tasks and seeing as the debt is £350 I'm not sure its really worth it to add another 50 on

 

3) is it worth speaking to citizens advice or will they just give me barrel answers

 

4) the outstanding judgement thats waiting to go to court could anyone help me on here with a defence ? because obviously my last one didnt work very well

 

 

 

sorry i know the post is long but this is literally so frustrating

 

if i had actually incurred a debt with someone for a service or goods they had provided i would of paid up straight away however these "debts" have seemingly appeared out of thin air

 

i still after all thisl fail to see the damage I've actually caused to warrant nearly £1000 pounds worth of parking charges all i did was park at my gym :violin:

 

thanks to anyone that takes the time to respond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is you didn't contest the CCJ, they need to increase the debt to over £600 to get it to high court to get the writ, but even then if you hide your car and do not let them in as they have no right of forced entry into a domestic residence. Other Caggers will be along soon with better and focused advice soon. Might be worth complaining to hotel management, as they have initiated the pain


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply

 

i didn't contest as i didn't see the point the magistrate on the first case showed very little empathy towards the situation

and ruled in they're favour anyway

 

even stating he was "fed up of dealing with these "

 

he did make an attempt to pull they're sign wording apart , but with gold stones having 3 solicitors there they wiggled out of it

 

i just cant understand how these people are allowed to operate this business model in modern britian every person i seem to speak too has had some type of trouble with private parking company's

 

i think my next port of call will be my MP these crooks need to be addressed in parliament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It is a (County Court) Judge, not a magistrate.

2) Parliament looked at the issue of parking on private land in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Did your previous defence rely on S76 and Schedule 4 of that Act, and (if not), should it have done so??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction : S56 of POFA 2012, not 76.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i used a lot of that S56 in my defence but was told since the supreme court had ruled in favour of parking eye last year

 

the points and defence i made were now worthless

 

basically the bandits are free to run a muck with seemingly nobody prepared to stop them

 

i see it was brought up in parliament but all that seemed to do was make it easier for the parking companys to pursue costs through the courts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes i used a lot of that S56 in my defence but was told since the supreme court had ruled in favour of parking eye last year

 

the points and defence i made were now worthless

 

S56 / schedule 4 relate to "keeper liability".

ParkingEye v Beavis went to the Supreme Court on the matter of if the parking charge was an unenforceable penalty or not.

 

The 2 are completely distinct legal arguments, and the failings of one don't nullify the other.

 

Had you identified yourself as the driver, and if not had they correctly established 'keeper liability' (usually they fall short of the requirements).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can remember even querying this with the gym manager who said the rules do not apply to patrons and members ( the sign millennium door and event security had put up even mentions this )

 

Did you provide evidence of this at court? If so, why did the judge ignore it?

 

Seeing as these people are only 'managing' the site on behalf of the gym, the gym remain liable if you have been wrongly ticketed and penalised.

 

To be harsh, you're letting youself get taken for a mug - you can transfer proceedings to your local court, you can apply for a set aside and ask for costs; if not given you can start separate proceedings. You should not be be punished financially if you are not at fault. The debt is too low for a HCEO to be enforcing. You need to complain to everyone you can think of, make a nuisance of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S56 / schedule 4 relate to "keeper liability".

ParkingEye v Beavis went to the Supreme Court on the matter of if the parking charge was an unenforceable penalty or not.

 

The 2 are completely distinct legal arguments, and the failings of one don't nullify the other.

 

Had you identified yourself as the driver, and if not had they correctly established 'keeper liability' (usually they fall short of the requirements).

 

i thought they had addressed all the issues regarding these cases ?

 

for example whether indeed by reading a sign can be classed as legally binding and enforceable contract

 

this is at least what i was led to believe

 

anyway i dont think i ever identified myself as the keeper because i never replied to anything they sent me did they then identify me by default im not sure ?

 

what am i looking for when you say have they correctly established keeper liablity could be usefull in the next court case

 

 

*also i will add i spoke to DCBL at lunch and they are happy to accept £50 a month starting from may *

 

 

although she did mention £50 is the minimum that they would accept in case anyone is looking to set a payment plan up with these

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we see the DCBL letter please

 

 

I've a feeling this is them operating as debt collector

with no legal powers whatsoever..

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i thought they had addressed all the issues regarding these cases ?

..........

anyway i dont think i ever identified myself as the keeper because i never replied to anything they sent me did they then identify me by default im not sure ?

 

Had you identified yourself as the driver, and if not had they correctly established 'keeper liability' (usually they fall short of the requirements).

 

Note that I was asking if you'd identified yourself as the driver, not identified yourself as the keeper. They get the Registered Keeper information from DVLA.

 

what am i looking for when you say have they correctly established keeper liablity could be usefull in the next court case

 

That'd be S56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 that I previously mentioned ...........

 

Or if you need help interpreting that : you could fill out the details (requested in the 'sticky' to this forum) that help people help you .....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you filed the acknowledgement of service yet?

If not do that and but yourself another fortnight to think about a defence.

 

We need a lot of info,

so start with pictures of the signage,

the exact place the car park is at so we can look at Google maps and have a peek at the entrance and general layout.

 

 

We also need to know more about the event, the paperwork you received and what you have done about it.

 

Also, DBCL are acting as debt collectors, not bailiffs so they wont be sending anyone round who doesnt want a fitting for a coffin.

 

Do not despair,

these things are often easier to beat than many believe.

 

 

Judges dont know everything about the law as applied to parking so you have to tell them.

 

 

Last time the others told the judge their story and as you couldnt counter that they were believed.

 

 

This time you are going to present all of the proper arguments and see them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...